The 9/11 conspiracy/denial debunking kit

[Xenocrates]

While I'm waiting for someone to take the anthrax bait (last link), I'll polish up my paraphrases.

 

[Bamspeedy]

@Basketcase re: Pentagon crash - what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU94lNCrxdY

So was it a cruise missile? A cruise missile flew in a zig-zag pattern knocking over 4 street lights (as shown on loose change)? Yeah right, or maybe, just maybe it was the wings of the plane knocking them over.

Purdue's study is a good one:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

Regarding the Pentagon, there are two videos on this page.
Interview:
http://www.itap.purdue.edu/enablingthefuture/video/
(I only got audio when clicking 'low', but got both audio and visual when I clicked on 'high' so it might depend on what version of media player you got and connection speed).

But I think this was the better one, no commentary, no sounds, just good visuals.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Pentagon-Crash-Digital-Render-from-Purdue-University

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Why is there an interest in 'debunking'? Why so much time and effort invested to debunk the so called conspiracy theories? Is someone hiding something, or is it in someone's interest that these conspiracy theories be debunked?

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories."
George W Bush

Wait, what?

 

[BasketCase]

Yes, Teno: it is in the best interest of those who want The Truth. These bullcrap conspiracy theories are a distraction from the truth. And the truth is that nineteen stupid radical idiots decided to deliberately attack lots of people who never hurt anybody in their lives.

 

[woody60707]

Why is there an interest in 'debunking'? Why so much time and effort invested to debunk the so called conspiracy theories? Is someone hiding something, or is it in someone's interest that these conspiracy theories be debunked?

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories."
George W Bush

Wait, what?

For the same reason we "debunk" the KKK or neo-Nazi when they have there crazy theories. Because its all flat out lies.

If some guy told you its a fact there is a conspiracy to keep white people down. and how white people are the true master race with higher IQ and such. Would you not call it on and umm "debunk" their crazy thinking.

So why wouldn't you "debunk" these conspiracy that say Jews killed over 3000's people and had the US start two wars that killed many more people all so some jews can make some money.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Why is there an interest in 'debunking'? Why so much time and effort invested to debunk the so called conspiracy theories? Is someone hiding something, or is it in someone's interest that these conspiracy theories be debunked?

Or maybe some people such as myself doesn't want people believing this nonsense and becoming more anti-american than they already are because they are duped by a hack-job documentary complete with spooky music and con artist 'experts'.

If someone is anti-american then I won't have a problem with it if it is justified and based on FACTS. Xeno just posts all kinds of crap to stir up hatred for America and the West (he also thinks the London bombings was a government set up), and just recently he was trying to declare voter fraud against blacks in New Hampshire.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Thanks for answering Tenochtitlan. It was the typical twoofer agument of "Those debunkers are just trying to cover the conspiracy up and confuse us!"

By the way, Tenochtitlan, I don't care about the 9/11 truthers as long as they remain a tiny, insignificant fringe group that everyone else tries to avoid. We can just laugh at them then. But when lots of people begin believing their lies that's when we have to hit back and refute every single claim.

 

[Xenocrates]

If you exchange the word 'believe' for 'strongly suspect' I'd agree with the first point (July 7th) Bam.

The New Hampshire point, however is completely wrong. The article in the UK newspaper said that black candidates are more likely to face slippage on vote day - not because of fraud (as far as I remember). And I didn't even say that I believed it; to be honest I didn't really give a damn one way or the other. It's not implicit that we believe every link that we post is it?



So nobody is bold enough to take the anthrax challenge. Well I'll just clean the smeg out of my keyboard with a cotton bud and save the coup de grace for another day.

 

[JerichoHill]

Xeno,

You still havent answered my critique of your argument sufficiently.
So no, I will not answer your question because you have not made a credible critique of mine.

 

[BasketCase]

Don't get any illusions, Xeno.

People don't pass up on your challenges (or mine for that matter) because they can't beat them. People pass up on them because they got distracted by some other thread. Me, I just can't be bothered right now because the Commies thread needs attention.

 

[Bamspeedy]

So nobody is bold enough to take the anthrax challenge.

You know you always were one of those that counted his chickens before they are hatched. Some of us are busy, you know.

This claim isn't new and I remember challenging it probably about 4 years ago....unfortunately, I realized it wasn't in a debate with you, but on some loony conspiracy site that was coming up with which theory would be more believable, and the webmaster kept trying to push the 'missiles shot from the planes a second before they hit the WTC' theory, while others wanted to push the 'planes were holograms' theory. But in your world, this webmaster (Phil Jayhen) is an honorable man while he drives around Chicago looking for chemtrails.

Since he doesn't want his original crackpot planning of which theories would be more believable exposed, he keeps his 'practice' websites hidden underground and/or deletes them, so they can't be found for me to remind myself of the details.

I really didn't want to start guessing on the details and say "You'll just have to trust me on this". Fortunately, Wiki to the rescue.

Although the anthrax preparations were of different grades, all of the material derived from the same bacterial strain. Known as the Ames strain, it was first researched at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. The Ames strain was then distributed to at least fifteen bio-research labs within the U.S. and six locations overseas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

So while you 'could' say someone at Fort Detrick is the culprit, this is far short of the proof you need to say that someone there IS the culprit. It could have came from any one of those other locations.

And the anthrax that vanished in 1992 was obviously not what was used.

Well I'll just clean the smeg out of my keyboard with a cotton bud and save the coup de grace for another day.

Bring it on, old man! And promise me it won't be like your "what hit the pentagon" crap.

The New Hampshire point, however is completely wrong. The article in the UK newspaper said that black candidates are more likely to face slippage on vote day - not because of fraud (as far as I remember). And I didn't even say that I believed it; to be honest I didn't really give a damn one way or the other. It's not implicit that we believe every link that we post is it?

Yes, 'fraud' was the wrong term for me to use. But you don't give a damn? Really, then why did you bold the sentence and add color to a word? Considered your obsession with conspiracies, it seemed as yet another conspiracy you believed in and you were hoping for outrage and riots to sweep the US.

 

[T.A JONES]

Xeno,

How does missing money make up for the fact that they simply didnt have enough time.

Again, I ask:

The world's largest controlled demolition took 9 months to complete with crews working 24 hours a day , on a building 1/4th the size.

If you're going to say it was a controlled demo, How can you say you would not be sure that something 4 times as complicated with at best 1/3 the time per day that this benchmark project took, would take less than 9 months to complete?

The one thing money can't do is change time. You cannot wire the building during the business day That leaves 8 hours a day. WTC is 4x larger than the most recent and largest controlled demo.

Posting a cutesy article on government waste is not proof of a controlled demo.

Your talking about CDI's take down of the King Dome! That was a massive Job (world record). As for time though, this can be easily explained why it took so long compared to a skyscraper.

The main concern was the thick concreate dome. The vibrations from the huge chunks of concreate were going to destroy retaken land near the shoreline and also compromise Historic building foundations near by. This explains the tedious timing of the operation. I watched a great segement on Geo Channel about this

Although I still don't believe it was a controled demo. Some say If True terrorists were invloved they would have waited a few hours later to pull of this once in lifetime plan in order to maximise casulaties.
By having planes hit when the building was at full capacity they could have acheived this. Only a Gov with a smidge of moral would holdoff on 30 000 deaths there by saving 4 or 5 'insiders' reletives without having to risk letting more unnessarily in on the secret.

Yet ... whats wrong with this? Well if the gov was so in control of the situation they would have used better explosives to pulverise and save the surronding buildings from harm. Instead massive waves of Debris were pushed throught the streets damaging more people and infrastructure they were going to have to foot the bill for, while creating horrable pictures that stayed in the peoples mind. This is Exactly what a terrorist would want, not a Gov.

The only thing I wondered if your Washinton knowledge might reveal is if if The Bush family lost the tender to provide security for the trade center. I believe the terrorists knew a hit on President Bush's brothers watch would lose him this valuable contract thus give Bush's family another embarresing smack in the face that day.

 

[Agent Valentine]

The only thing I wondered if your Washinton knowledge might reveal is if if The Bush family lost the tender to provide security for the trade center. I believe the terrorists knew a hit on President Bush's brothers watch would lose him this valuable contract thus give Bush's family another embarresing smack in the face that day.

I will only comment on this section of your post.

There are many errors in the article you "cite." First of all, Securacom did not have any security guards. They were hired along with some other companies after the 1993 bombings to improve electronic security systems, you know, CCTV and the like.

Secondly, the Bush family didn't own or control the company. One Bush, Marvin, was on the board of directors. He was not the CEO, President, owner, or any of that. He was just a relatively nondescript corporate officer. In addition, he sold all his shares in 2000 after he failed to be re-elected to the board of directors, meaning the Bush family had nothing to do with this company by the time of the attacks.

Thirdly, the contract did not run out "the day before the attacks." The contract was terminated in 1998 because Securacom was not performing at a sufficient level of competency.

Fourthly, Securacom was not "in charge of security" at the WTC complex. WTC had its own security chief, John O'Neill. And a lot of the security was provided by the Port Authority, which is a public organization.

 

[Xenocrates]

Instead of doing what I planned I’ll tell you what it was and let you judge how well it played out. I’ve debated against ‘truthers’ (of the loose change variety) in other places and there’s one thing I’d like to tell you: I usually can’t tell the difference between you and them.

• You both discount sources for bogus reasons – that guy’s an old fart (that’s why I chose Stubblebine and by strange coincidence – as usual – he’s in the press shortly afterwards http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=510762&in_page_id=1770 God bless Karl Jung)
  I didn’t like the music. I don’t agree with other stuff that guy/website’s said. Blah blah blah.
  
  
• You all think you have a sixth sense to mysteriously know which sources on the internet are true and which are not.
  
  “Did you bother to research who the heck this Karl Schwarz is?”
  
  No and neither did you. All you did was look at some words on the internet; do the true words glow red for you or something? I mean, if I genuinely believed you had a sixth sense I’d pay to be on your lottery syndicate!
  
  
• You both can’t accept that some people refuse to make their minds up about this and turn every debate into trench warfare complete with throwing mustard gas grenades. You both play the man and not the ball.
  
  
• You both fail to see problems with sources that agree with you – The Purdue study, for example, is junk, total junk. Other sources, like Loose Change and its equal and opposite are also never questioned by their acolytes. Similarly for Snopes, wiki and even Pop Mech. Remember the crud some of you talked about the put options? Another case in point. And let's not forget the anonymous source (official narrative) that you so enjoy related to July 7. It's anonymous for Christs sake! If I even posted, let alone supported, an anonymous source I'd be straight on the witch dunking stool.
  
  
• You both misinterpret evidence. Such as the molten iron. This was seen pouring from a window on 9/11. It’s not a case of steel doesn’t need to melt - it’s a case of the damn steel did melt* (and why?). And you both pretend that there’s no virtue at all in opposing sources: http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/molten-iron/
  
  IMO, this is a decent analysis of the molten metal issue. If history repeats itself you guys will just say “I can’t believe that guy; he has a SMALL company”. How do you know that? “Because some other website told me!”
  
  
• You both apply different rules to similar occasions to suit yourselves.
  
  Even if it was molten aluminium* can you haven’t explained why there was no molten aluminium reported in the Pentagon crash and all other office fires and plane crashes. “It was impossible for the Twin Towers to be ‘wired up’”. In that case it was also impossible for them to be built in the first place! I mean cooperation and collusion are the same from the point of view of the actors. It’s only the observers that discern a difference and that’s in legality and morality (but we know that some people don’t give a hoot about those).
  
  
• You both select what to even consider as being relevant on a very dubious basis. How do you know that the trillions stolen/lost during the years before 9/11 don’t come into it? How do you know that? How do you know money wasn’t a motivation at all? Even if Al Q existed (definition) and did it, why wouldn’t they place a few puts and buy Raytheon stock?
  
  
• You both stereotype your opponents. Enough said.
  
  
• And finally, you both take yourselves far too seriously.

You may run home crying to your Mummy's now.

 

[The Yankee]

I'm sure you are joking, but just to put this out there.....

That same picture has been out there before, only recently new faces have been put in place of the guy since the guy from the 'original' faked picture came forward and admitted he altered the picture.

1. 9/11 was a warm, sunny day whereas the picture seems to depict it being winter.

2. The plane is approaching from the north, which would mean it was the one that hit the north tower. The north tower didn't have an observation deck.

3. The observation deck in the south tower didn't open until 9:30, but the plane hit at 8:49.

4. The picture is of a 757, not a 767.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/photos/tourist.asp

Further, I would think that a plane would show at least a bit of blur, given the speed and how close it was.

And how would someone have gotten the picture out if the plane was to hit two seconds after?

 

[Bamspeedy]

You both discount sources for bogus reasons – that guy’s an old fart (that’s why I chose Stubblebine and by strange coincidence – as usual – he’s in the press shortly afterwards http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770 God bless Karl Jung)
I didn’t like the music. I don’t agree with other stuff that guy/website’s said. Blah blah blah.

Because someone is 'an old fart' would indeed by a bogus reason. Questioning their mental stability isn't. You can keep going to the nearest insane asylum for your sources, but don't be surprised when people don't take your sources seriously.

Now I suppose you are trying to make the argument that one should attack the subject and not the author. So what is the subject? His OPINION. Mental stability skews opinions and can make them totally irrational. He is no expert of the physics of what happens to planes as they hit a building.

You all think you have a sixth sense to mysteriously know which sources on the internet are true and which are not.

“Did you bother to research who the heck this Karl Schwarz is?”

No and neither did you. All you did was look at some words on the internet; do the true words glow red for you or something? I mean, if I genuinely believed you had a sixth sense I’d pay to be on your lottery syndicate!

You have no comprehension of what credibility is do you? If someone is posing as an 'expert', his expertise should withstand reasonable scrutiny. His job title and position was deceptively used for the casual reader (who is just going to take the words at face value) into thinking "Wow, this big CEO executive is saying this, he must know what he is talking about, so there must be some truth to it". If he is really just the owner of a small computer store, that should be known so people can take it for the same value as if me or any other average Joe started talking about scientific stuff that we are not qualified or trained in.

Yes there are dubious sources on the internet (and books and any form of media really), but it also is what your entire case rests on! So exactly what is your purpose then? We already know that there exists people who won't believe any historical fact, so should all historical records just be thrown out the window then just because some crackpots come up with a way to twist the facts and make it appear that history is wrong?

Similarly for Snopes, wiki and even Pop Mech.

The difference between these 3 and other sources is that these 3 are usually more detailed about where they get their information from and they don't accept random web blogs as sources. I'll admit wiki can be vandalized, but if you doubt any of the information you can check the footnotes to do more research yourself. Instead you would rather get in debates like this so other people can research the other side of the argument for you.

If history repeats itself you guys will just say “I can’t believe that guy; he has a SMALL company”.

This guy isn't posing as a CEO, so his company size means nothing.

Using his own words he was jailed in Germany for holocaust denial.

Looking at other places in his website, I am left with the impression that he is one of those 'defense scientists' who uses junk science to cast doubt on the defendant in a trial to get them acquitted. It's no wonder that his testimony has been rejected countless times.

(P.S. I think it is cute how he used a black and white picture to say "See, the metal in this picture doesn't glow as much as the metal in this other vibrant, colorful picture).

How do you know that the trillions stolen/lost during the years before 9/11 don’t come into it? How do you know that? How do you know money wasn’t a motivation at all?

You don't know that they did. We ask for proof and all you post are these possibilities. While not specifically saying that the money went to them, you deceitfully insuniate that it did.

You both stereotype your opponents. Enough said.

Like you saying one side of the argument is sheeple? Or you saying that anyone believing that there are indeed a few muslim extremists in the world is a racist?

And finally, you both take yourselves far too seriously.

You are the one that always wants to say "I won!" far too early, and you are the one that made the long distance call from China to Oklahoma to confirm what the OKC museum had to say about a subject.

You may run home crying to your Mummy's now.

That was your big coup de grace? I'm disappointed in you!

 

[brennan]

[*]You both misinterpret evidence. Such as the molten iron. This was seen pouring from a window on 9/11. It’s not a case of steel doesn’t need to melt - it’s a case of the damn steel did melt* (and why?). And you both pretend that there’s no virtue at all in opposing sources: http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/molten-iron/

Xeno this is complete nonsense. I mean the first thing the guy shows us is a stream of silvery molten metal, then he's showing us emissions spectra that clearly show molten steel would be glowing yellow/red.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I mean the first thing the guy shows us is a stream of silvery molten metal, then he's showing us emissions spectra that clearly show molten steel would be glowing yellow/red.

Well to be fair, the author was showing the silvery metal and saying "in this picture the liquid is probably molten aluminum, which is different than what the main focus of the article is on, which is the yellow/red liquid" and then later he showed again the two metals being melted in more controlled circumstances.

The author doesn't seem to cover what happens if the melted aluminum is combined with other molten metals and insists the yellow/red liquid MUST be steel.

I thought the yellow/red liquid was proof of thermite? People showed a picture awfully similar to the melted steel Xeno posted and used that as proof of thermite. There could be alot of metals and chemical combinations that will give off a yellow/red appearance when hot.

What does thermite need? Aluminum (from the aircraft) and sulpher (from drywall). The only pic he has of the silvery liquid was in the early stages of the fire (grainy picture at best) and that could have been before the aluminum had much time to interact and mix with the sulpher to any significant degree (the silvery liquid was a half hour before the yellow/red liquid appeard). During a half hour of various debris being burned and added to the 'pool' of molten aluminum who knows what kind of chemical compounds could have resulted.

 

[brennan]

All the pictures of yellow/red material are stills, so it's hard to tell if they actually look like streams of liquid. They are all also labelled to say that the colours have been adjusted.

 

[T.A JONES]

I will only comment on this section of your post.

There are many errors in the article you "cite." First of all, Securacom did not have any security guards. They were hired along with some other companies after the 1993 bombings to improve electronic security systems, you know, CCTV and the like.

Secondly, the Bush family didn't own or control the company. One Bush, Marvin, was on the board of directors. He was not the CEO, President, owner, or any of that. He was just a relatively nondescript corporate officer. In addition, he sold all his shares in 2000 after he failed to be re-elected to the board of directors, meaning the Bush family had nothing to do with this company by the time of the attacks.

Thirdly, the contract did not run out "the day before the attacks." The contract was terminated in 1998 because Securacom was not performing at a sufficient level of competency.

Fourthly, Securacom was not "in charge of security" at the WTC complex. WTC had its own security chief, John O'Neill. And a lot of the security was provided by the Port Authority, which is a public organization.

They had duties and responsabiles to protect the Trade center thats what I got as being true beyond a doubt. Of the whole 'Truther' thing this was one fact I thought was to coincidental.
Im sure they earned quite a nice penny for providing security, but you may be right. It may have been a small security firm like you suggest. If you have a former CIA head as father then who knows, it could have been covert watch group "protecting' America's intrests

It says he left in 2000's fiscal year. I take it thats not January 1, 2000 so he was out a few monthes before the attacks happened. Lucky SOB is what they'd say in Texas.
Man, How would he know to sell ALL his shares in 2000 without some hint a year later the companies major contract would be leveled?
See I doubt what your sources say on this matter are correct. Sounds like disinfo trytin to paint him as having Martha Stewart type intuition